News
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk explains why Blue Origin’s Starship lawsuit makes no sense
For the first time since SpaceX competitor Blue Origin took NASA to federal court after losing a Moon lander contract to Starship and a protest over that loss, unsealed documents have finally revealed the argument Jeff Bezos’ space startup is focusing on in court.
After the details broke in new court documents filed on Wednesday, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk weighed in on Twitter to offer his take on why the arguments Blue Origin has hinged its lawsuit on make very little sense.
While one seemingly significant portion of the main complaint claiming to reveal “additional substantial errors” in SpaceX’s Starship HLS proposal was almost fully redacted, most of the opening argument is legible. In short, Blue Origin appears to have abandoned the vast majority of arguments it threw about prior to suing NASA and the US government and is now almost exclusively hinging its case on the claim that SpaceX violated NASA’s procurement process by failing to account for a specific kind of prelaunch review before every HLS-related Starship launch.
For NASA’s HLS competition, SpaceX proposed to create a custom variant of Starship capable of serving as a single-stage-to-orbit crewed Moon lander with the help of the rest of the Starship fleet – including Super Heavy boosters, cargo/tanker Starships, and a depot or storage ship. SpaceX would begin a Moon landing campaign by launching a (likely heavily modified) depot Starship into a stable Earth orbit. Anywhere from 8 to 14 Starship tanker missions – each carrying around 100-150 tons of propellant – would then gradually fill that depot ship over the course of no more than six or so months. Once filled, an HLS lander would launch to orbit, refill its tanks from the depot ship, and make its way to an eccentric lunar orbit to rendezvous with NASA’s Orion spacecraft and three Artemis astronauts.
As Blue Origin has exhaustively reminded anyone within earshot for the last five months, SpaceX’s Starship Moon lander proposal is extremely complex and NASA is taking an undeniable risk (of delays, not for astronauts) by choosing SpaceX. Nevertheless, NASA’s Kathy Lueders and a source evaluation panel made it abundantly clear in public selection statement that SpaceX’s proposal was by far the most competent, offering far a far superior management approach and technical risk no worse than Blue Origin’s far smaller, drastically less capable lander.
The bulk of Blue Origin’s argument appears to be that its National Team Lander proposal was drastically disadvantaged by the fact that SpaceX may or may not have incorrectly planned for just three ‘flight readiness reviews’ (FRRs) for each 16-launch HLS Starship mission. While heavily redacted, Blue Origin wants a judge to believe that contrary to the US Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) fair assessment that such a small issue is incredibly unlikely to have changed the competition’s outcome, it would have “been able to propose a substantially lower price” for its lander. To be clear, a flight readiness review is an admittedly important part of NASA’s safety culture, but it ultimately amounts to paperwork and doublechecks over the course of a day or two of meetings.
All else equal, the need to complete an FRR before a launch is incredibly unlikely to cause more than a few days of delays in a worst-case scenario and would have next to no cost impact. There is no reasonable way to argue that being allowed to complete some launches without an FRR would have singlehandedly allowed Blue Origin to “[engineer] and [propose] an entirely different architecture.” Nevertheless, that’s exactly what the company attempts to argue – that it would have radically and completely changed the design it spent more than half a billion dollars sketching out if it had only been able to skip a few reviews.
Curiously, Blue Origin nevertheless does make a few coherent and seemingly fact-based arguments in the document. Perhaps most notably, it claims that when NASA ultimately concluded that it didn’t have funds for even a single award (a known fact) and asked SpaceX – its first choice – to make slight contract modifications to make the financial side of things work, NASA consciously chose to waive the need for an FRR before every HLS Starship launch. Only via purported cost savings from those waived reviews, Blue Origin claims, was NASA able to afford SpaceX’s proposal – which, it’s worth noting, was more than twice as cheap as the next cheapest option (Blue Origin).
Ultimately, it thus appears that Blue Origin may have a case to make that NASA awarded SpaceX the HLS Option A contract despite a handful of errors that violated contracting rules and the HLS solicitation. Relative to just about any other possible issue, though, it’s hard not to perceive the problems Blue Origin may or may have correctly pointed out as anything more than marginal and extraordinarily unlikely to have changed the outcome in Blue’s favor had they been rectified before the award. Most importantly, even if Blue Origin’s argument is somehow received favorably and a judge orders NASA to overturn its SpaceX HLS award and reconsider all three proposals, it’s virtually inconceivable that even that best-case outcome would result in Blue Origin receiving a contract of any kind.
News
Tesla officially begins sunset of Model S and Model X
In the latest move to show Tesla is planning to eliminate the Model S and Model X from production, the company’s Korean arm has officially set a firm cutoff date of March 31, 2026, for new orders of both models.
Tesla has officially started its process of sunsetting the Model S and Model X just months after the company confirmed it would stop producing the two flagship vehicles in 2026.
This step marks the end of an era for the vehicles that helped establish not only Tesla’s prowess as an automaker but also its status as a disruptor in the entire car industry. While these two cars have done a tremendous amount for Tesla, the signal that it is time to wind down their production has evidently arrived.
In the latest move to show Tesla is planning to eliminate the Model S and Model X from production, the company’s Korean arm has officially set a firm cutoff date of March 31, 2026, for new orders of both models.
This is the first time Tesla has announced a hard global deadline for the Model S and X, as after that date, only existing inventory will be available in South Korea.
The move to bring closure to the Model S and Model X aligns with CEO Elon Musk’s plans for Tesla moving forward. During the Q4 2025 Earnings Call in January, Musk said the two cars deserved an “honorable discharge” for what they have done for the company.
The long-running programs are primarily being removed so that manufacturing lines can be repurposed for high-volume manufacturing of the Optimus humanoid robot. Tesla is targeting a production rate of up to one million units each year.
The Model S and Model X being removed from Tesla’s plans is a tough choice, but it was one that was written on the wall. Sales of these premium models have declined sharply in recent years, and even with Plaid configurations that are performance-forward, the company still has had trouble getting them sold.
In 2025, the Model S and Model X together accounted for roughly 3 percent of Tesla’s global deliveries, down significantly from prior periods as competition intensified in the luxury EV segment and buyers shifted toward more affordable options like the Model 3 and Model Y.
The Model S saw sales drop over 50 percent year-over-year in some quarters, while the Model X faced similar pressures from rivals, including the Rivian R1S and BMW iX.
Despite their dwindling volume, the Model S and Model X remain technological showcases. The Plaid variants deliver blistering acceleration, advanced Full Self-Driving capability, and luxurious interiors.
The phase-out paves the way for Tesla’s strategic pivot toward autonomy, robotics, and higher-volume vehicles.
Tesla brings closure to flagship ‘sentimental’ models, Musk confirms
Fremont will continue producing the refreshed Model 3 and Model Y, ensuring the factory remains a key automotive hub while expanding into robotics. Tesla has stated that the shift is not expected to result in job losses and could increase headcount as Optimus production ramps up.
For Tesla fans, the sunset represents a bittersweet moment. The Model S, introduced in 2012, proved EVs could compete with luxury sedans, while the Falcon-wing-door Model X set new standards for family haulers. Owners can expect continued software support and service for years to come.
Many fans have pushed for the Model X to hang around due to its appeal for families.
With the two cars heading out, Tesla’s priority now becomes its future products, especially that of the Optimus robot, which is the main reason for the S/X platform’s conclusion.
News
Tesla shows off mysterious vehicle at Giga Texas
The mysterious structure, partially unboxed amid construction materials, has sparked widespread speculation among Tesla enthusiasts and analysts. Many are convinced it is the long-rumored Model Y L, the extended-wheelbase variant already popular in China, now arriving in Texas for potential U.S. production.
Tesla seemingly showed off a mysterious vehicle at Giga Texas, one that seems to be completely different than anything the company currently makes for the U.S. market.
The vehicle, which was spotted on the plant’s property, appears to be similar to the Model Y L that has not yet launched in North America, and is currently built at Gigafactory Shanghai in China.
Drone pilot Joe Tegtmeyer captured intriguing footage at Tesla’s Giga Texas on March 23, 2026, revealing what appears to be a large, blue plastic-wrapped vehicle body resting inside a wooden shipping crate outdoors.
Well this is interesting at Giga Texas today … what do YOU think this is? 🤔😎 pic.twitter.com/U9pLvqbf7L
— Joe Tegtmeyer 🚀 🤠🛸😎 (@JoeTegtmeyer) March 23, 2026
The mysterious structure, partially unboxed amid construction materials, has sparked widespread speculation among Tesla enthusiasts and analysts. Many are convinced it is the long-rumored Model Y L, the extended-wheelbase variant already popular in China, now arriving in Texas for potential U.S. production.
The images show an elongated silhouette that stands out from standard Model Y bodies. Side-by-side comparisons shared in replies to Tegtmeyer’s post highlight key differences: the rear door extends farther over the wheel arch than on a regular Model Y, and the rear glass appears to run all the way to the spoiler lip without the metal trim seen on shorter versions.
One overlay analysis noted that the visible proportions align precisely with the Chinese-market Model Y L, which measures approximately 4.98 meters long with a 3.04-meter wheelbase, which is about seven inches longer overall than the standard Model Y sold in the U.S.
Model Y L, with a support structure on top, likely for shipping. pic.twitter.com/ET3w46DjpJ
— Owen Sparks (@OwenSparks) March 23, 2026
The vehicle is a bare “body-in-white” shell, typical of prototypes sent abroad for tooling validation and local manufacturing ramp-up. Tesla has already launched the six- and seven-seat Model Y L in China and other markets, where it offers roughly 10% more cargo space and greater family-friendly versatility.
This sighting fits Tesla’s broader strategy. Industry observers expect the company to localize Model Y L production at Giga Texas by mid-2026 to serve American families seeking extra room without stepping up to the larger Cybertruck or a future full-size SUV.
Bringing the design stateside could add tens of thousands of annual deliveries while leveraging existing Model Y lines. People have been adamant that they want the Model Y L in the U.S., especially as Tesla plans to fade the Model X, the company’s most ideal vehicle for large families, out of production in the near future.
Tesla Model Y lineup expansion signals an uncomfortable reality for consumers
While Tesla has made no official comment, the timing, amid Giga Texas expansion and steady Model Y output, suggests the mysterious crate is more than a random prototype.
If confirmed as the Model Y L, it marks another step in Tesla’s effort to refresh its bestselling SUV for global demand. The vehicle would perform exceptionally well in the U.S., and despite the company’s rather mute stance on bringing it to America, this might be the biggest hint to date that it could be on the way.
Cybertruck
Tesla Cybertruck just won a rare and elusive crash safety honor
Only the most outstanding of performances in crash tests can warrant an IIHS Top Safety Pick+ award, as vehicles listed with that ranking must achieve “Good” ratings in the small overlap front, updated side, and updated moderate overlap front tests, along with “Acceptable” or “Good” headlights standard on all trims.
Tesla Cybertruck landed a rare and elusive safety honor from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). It was the only pickup truck in the U.S. market to do so.
The IIHS rewarded the Cybertruck with the Top Safety Pick+ honors, the highest marks a vehicle can receive from the agency.
Only the most outstanding of performances in crash tests can warrant an IIHS Top Safety Pick+ award, as vehicles listed with that ranking must achieve “Good” ratings in the small overlap front, updated side, and updated moderate overlap front tests, along with “Acceptable” or “Good” headlights standard on all trims.
🚨 Absolutely insane.
Tesla Cybertruck was the ONLY pickup on the market to be awarded a Top Safety Pick+ rating by the IIHS
The safest rating out there belongs to Cybertruck 📐 pic.twitter.com/Y8gLOqaL0d
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) March 24, 2026
Cybertruck was the only truck to also win an NHTSA Five-Star Safety rating, making it the only pickup available on the market to be recognized with top marks from both agencies.
There are a multitude of options for pickups in the U.S. market, as it is one of the most popular vehicle types for consumers in the country. Pickups are great vehicles for anyone who does any sort of hauling or is just looking for extra space for any variety of reasons.
Pickups are also inherently safer than other body types on the road, mostly because they are larger and heavier, making them more favorable against other vehicle types in the event of a collision. However, Tesla has a significant advantage in safety with its vehicles because it engineers them to not only be safer in collisions, but also easier to repair.
The Cybertruck managed to achieve “Good” ratings, the highest marks available by the IIHS, in all three Crashworthiness categories, as well as “Good” ratings in both Crash Avoidance and Mitigation assessments.
It also received “Good” ratings across all driver and pedestrian crash-test performance metrics, except for one, where it earned an “Acceptable” rating for rear passengers in the Chest category.
The Cybertruck’s outstanding crash test performance has won it this incredible mark as the pickup still tends to be one of the more polarizing vehicle designs on the market.
It is no secret that Tesla has struggled with demand of the Cybertruck due to pricing, but the recent rollout of a trim that was temporarily priced at just $59,990 showed plenty of people want the all-electric pickup.
Tesla officially begins sunset of Model S and Model X
Tesla shows off mysterious vehicle at Giga Texas
Tesla Cybertruck just won a rare and elusive crash safety honor
What is Digital Optimus? The new Tesla and xAI project explained
Elon Musk launches TERAFAB: The $25B Tesla-SpaceXAI chip factory that will rewire the AI industry
